Olympus OM-D E-M5: The best of the micro 4:3 cameras

Olympus OM-D E-M5 vs Pen E-P3

The OM-D E-M5 introduces a new 16 Mpix LiveMos sensor that we will first compare with the 12 Mpix sensors found in the preceding generation of Pen cameras, the Pen E-P3, Pen E-PL3, and Pen E-PM1.

The OM-D E-M5’s Overall DxOMark Score, 20 points higher than the Pen E-P3 and its 12 Mpix sensor, gives a good sense of how much progress has been made. And the new hybrid’s 16 Mpix sensor does indeed provide some tangible benefits:

Dynamic range: The improvement on this front has been spectacular, with a gain of 2EV over the Pen E-P3 and the entire line of older-generation Pen compact hybrids.

As for low-light sensitivity, the OM-D E-M5 shows a notable gain on the order of 2/3EV — not bad for a sensor with the same sensitive surface area.

Often criticized about their sensitivity, the low-light scores for micro 4:3 sensors usually max out at around 600 ISO. To date, the OM-D E-M5 is the best compact micro 4:3 sensor in terms of low-light sensitivity, achieving a score that is fairly close to those for APS-C sensors.

The signal-to-noise chart clearly shows that the new high-end hybrid wins for print-based image quality, with the gap becoming more significant at higher sensitivities.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 vs Panasonic Lumix GX1 and G3

With a DxOMark Overall Score 15 points better than those obtained by its 16 Mpix micro 4:3 Panasonic competitors, the G3 and the GX1, the OM-D takes a comfortable lead and offers a significant competitive advantage.

As for Color Depth, the Olympus sensor provides finer gradations, with a score of 1.8 bits better. We found the same difference between the older 12 Mpix Pen sensors as for the 16 Mpix Panasonic sensors.

The color depth of the OM-D E-M5 is manifestly better than that of the Lumix GX1 and G3.

Dynamic range: At 1.7EV higher, the OM-D beats the Panasonic cameras hands-down. This is a significant gain. As seen on the chart, the dynamic progression for the G3/GX1 starts to stagnate at 800 ISO, whereas that of OM-D E-M5 continues to increase in amplitude, achieving 12.3EV at 200 ISO (a sensitivity that actually translates to 107 ISO).

The superiority of the OM-D E-M5 sensor’s dynamic range compared to the Panasonic Lumix hybrids is obvious.

Low-light sensitivity: As for sensitivity, the OM-D E-M5 is slightly higher but still at the same general performance level as for the Panasonic GX1 and G3, with a score of 667 ISO for the Panasonic duo vs 826 ISO for the OM-D.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 vs Sony NEX-7 and NEX-5N

Unsurprisingly, the OM-D E-M5’s sensor score is lower than the excellent scores of the two Sony compact hybrids equipped respectively with 16 Mpix and 24 Mpix CMOS EXMOR sensors. But with only 6 points separating it from the NEX-5N, the OM-D comes closer to such APS-C hybrids of reference than any compact micro 4:3 has ever come before, thus changing the game by reducing the image quality gap between micro 4:3 cameras and these APS-C-equipped NEX cameras.

Color depth: The Sony cameras keep the lead by 1 bit, give or take… but in the real world, the difference is undetectable on a photo.

Dynamic range: The OM-D is outdistanced by the NEX-7 by one full bit in terms of exposure latitude, which isn’t a whole lot, considering that the latter camera is a champion in this area. As for the NEX-5N, which achieves a score of 12.7EV, the Olympus is evolving in the same direction at 12.3EV, putting it well within the same general category.

Low-light sensitivity: With their sensor’s larger sensitive surface area, the two Sony NEX cameras come out on top, but only by a tiny 1/3 EV. The pixel pitch of the OM-D E-M5 is the tightest among the three sensors. In short, this is a great success for a significantly smaller sensor.

Low-light sensitivity: The difference in size between the sensitive surface areas results in a gap of 1.7 EV between low-light sensitivity scores in favor of the OM-D (826 ISO vs 245 ISO for the X10). This gain is substantial for photos at high sensitivity. Logically, the X10 concedes the game at 1600 ISO. The OM-D E-M5 stretches its sensitivity range up to 25600 ISO. As one can see on the comparative SNR curves below, the OM-D E-M5 achieves the same score at 6400 that the Fuji X10 does at 1600 ISO.

The 2/3" sensor of the Fuji X10 is far behind the much larger 4:3 sensor of the Olympus compact hybrid. Their respective SNR curves speak for themselves.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 vs Nikon 1

DxOMark Score: Our tests on the Nikon 1 hybrids’ 1-inch CMOS sensor showed it to be powerful and well-designed. But the OM-D E-M5’s new LiveMos sensor brings with it a gain of 15 and 17 points over the Nikon 1 J1 and V1’s overall scores, respectively. The new Olympus sensor scores better across all our evaluation criteria.

Color depth: The OM-D shows a gain of one bit, progress that is barely visible in a print, but heading in the right direction nonetheless.

Dynamic range: The OM-D E-M5 beats the Nikon 1’s honorable scores with an already comfortable dynamic range that has been improved by 1 EV.

Low-light sensitivity: With a more generous sensitive surface area, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 logically achieves a low-light score of more than 1 EV greater than that of both the Nikon 1 J1 and V1: 826 ISO vs 372 and 346 ISO, respectively.

The signal-to-noise ratio of the Olympus OM-D compared to those of the Nikon 1.

Further readings for the Olympus OM-D E-M5: The best of the micro 4:3 cameras

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Olympus caused a sensation when it revived the legendary OM line that had enjoyed its heyday in the silver halide era. The Olympus OM-D E-M5 successfully revisits the OM design in terms of its ergonomics and workmanship. Olympus has quite precisely taken advantage of this new family in its line of compact hybrid micro 4:3 cameras to introduce a new 16 Mpix Live MOS sensor. What is this new sensor all about? Does it represent an improvement over current Pen sensors? Does it help the micro 4:3 category to catch up with the APS-C hybrids (with the Sony NEX in the lead)? Our sensor review provides the answers.

Comments

MAJOR PROBLEMS with OM-D-E-M5!!

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>I experienced several major problems with my new OM-D-E-M5 yesterday, and I need some explanation and help.

#1 Issue--horrible chromatic aberration/fringing--green, blue, and purple fringing along the edge of some mountain peaks at Pinnacles National Monument. Used the Lumix 20mm/1.7 aspherical lens. Unacceptable fringing -- I could never submit my shots to a contest, sell them to a client, or even blow them up to hang in my living room!

#2 Issue--strange black images! On the first shot of the day, the image turned out completely black (looked blue in the LCD). The second image was 90% black, but you could see the subject in the top-left of the image. The third image was fine. The exposure setting was exactly the same for all three shots (ISO 200, 1/4000 sec., f 4.0). This black image, then OK image pattern repeated itself 2-3 more times during the day. Oh, yeah. The lens used was the Zuiko 12mm/f2.0.

#3 Issue--exposure mistakes? I took at shot of the mountains just after the sun set. There was no exposure compensation and the resulting histogram was dead center. However, the image looked very light on my computer. I also took several other shots with positive and negative exposure compensation, and I found that the shot that looked best, most like how it really appeared to my eyes at the time I took the shot, was 1/3-2/3 stop underexposed. So, does the camera have an exposure problem?

Does anyone have an explanation for the above? If Olympus can't or won't fix the fringing, I'll have to return all the gear I bought and look for a new system. Aaargh!!

First replies for this comment

Re: A nice camera

Well, well, well...

DXO has procrastinated for so long, that I wrote them off and decided to buy my own OM-D without waiting for their analysis.

I'm glad I did, because I find it an extraordinary camera. The usability and the image quality is extraordinary. I am not surprised to learn it is the best m43 around. It has an extraordinary dynamic range, almost no-existent noise at ISOs lower than 3200 and a magnificent range of colors (I shoot exclusively in RAW mode).

So I am somewhat dissapointed at the overall results shown by DXO. So much so in fact, that I'm begining to doubt about the credibility of DXO testing. Specially after seeing the results of other tests done -with DXO software- with results completely different to those published here.

It sounds all so darn fishy... they wait and wait and wait, and finally, out of the blue, and when the OM-D no longer has any mediatic impact, they decide to release the results of their testing. By now it is irrelevant, save for historical reasons. It is of no real use to their readers.

The worst part is that these results lack credibility. My own experienced is very different. I own a Sony A77 as well as the OM-D and I have done my own informal testing and comparison with both. The OM-D is far superior -image quality wise- to the Sony in just aboout every aspect. It is hard for me to believe the A77 can be so far ahead in the ranking of DXO.

Re: Well, well, well...

Read the post by seta666, and you will get the answer to your question.The reason that the picture quality look so good to you at ISO-3200, is because its actually ISO-1489! While on the A77 its ISO-2612

Re: Well, well, well...

Well I suggest reading R Butlers article on ISO / ISO Cheating or if it should be consider cheating or is an interesting technological advancement here:http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

its much easier to underestand, less confusing, well guided and straight forward IMO. it exaplins the two most common definition of ISOs very well and different camera manufacturer's take on these and personally I am very satisfied with the conclusion that says "all that matters is the final image quality and usability"!

So if you keep calling Oly tht its underexposing at equivalent ISO's, you simply are not getting the point!

Question for Axel

Hello Axel, thank you for testing this camera.Can you please answer the comments about the true ISO values of this camera?My question is general - does the scores in DXO are based on the real ISO sensitivity, or the manufacture stated values?

Re: Question for Axel

Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results

Has anyone compared the pictures on dpreview.com under "16. Noise & Noise Reduction" for the OM-D EM-5? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/16Compare the OM-D with a Panasonic DMC-G3, Sony NEX-7 and a Samsung NX200. Look at the tests for both JPEG and RAW. This is a little hard to do since NEX-7 only has noise reduction "High Low or Normal" and no apparent OFF. With NR "off" the Samsung is the cleanest up thru 6400, but the image produced by the Samsung is almost invisible at this stage. I guess great ISO is possible but if the picture is hard to see, why bother? Of the 4, the OM-D and NEX-7 are very close at NR=Low setting. In the ACR Raw noise test (lets face it, RAW is where you see what the sensor can really do, internal processing can only degrade the image SOMEWHERE) the OM-D is far better up to 3200 with ACR NR off, not only are the test swatches smoother, the image is clearer. Again, the Samsung has better swatch but the image is too washed out to be useful. I think DxO does a real service with their test results and they are useful for comparison before a purchase but primarily, I need to consider the results of the picture as I see it as the final factor. I bought an OM-D in July and the results have been everything I hoped for. Great shots at incredibly slow speeds (11x14 is beautiful with 1/15 sec hand-held shots of a stream). Very clean shots up to 1600 (what ISO is that really? who knows but in evening light and with no flash I get great shots, that's what counts). Kind of reminds me of when I ditched my Brownie and bought my first Nikon.

First replies for this comment

Re: Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results

@Spkeasy Yes I noticed all you said, already. In simple words IMO OMD has better overall results at any ISO from any camera produced APSC or 4/3. That is why I was hoping a good result from DXOMark as they only measure sensor characterstics; and no other factor at all. As DXOMark was always giving pathetic results to Olympus cameras, however their results are ridicolously low. Good that you bought it yourself without waiting for DxoMark. After GH3 tests, maybe I will do the same.

In isos over 400 it is over 1EV off, worst I have ever seen. That is why iso 1600 looks clean, because it is not even iso 800

Anyway, seems a good 4/3 sensor but I find this iso thing very anoying

If you compare this to the GF3 or GF5 which are very well calibrated it would show very easy[url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic]http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic[/url]

Same shot in same lighting conditions with same exposure time, same aperture and same iso the E-M5 will always be 1EV underexpossed

For me this lying to the customers; I guess is better to say you have an amaizing iso 1600 than to tell the truth and say it is just iso 800

First replies for this comment

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

I agree. This is lying.

It seems like Olympus would have done this to game tests, but one has to assume that they couldn't be that stupid. Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look.

Unfortunately, the alternative is equally bad: Olympus is incompetent. In this hypothesis, Olympus simply has no idea how to design a camera correctly. This seems equally unlikely, since it's obvious that Olympus can, in fact, design cameras.

I guess, regardless of the explanation, this is very bad. But at least even with the numbers corrected, the E-M5 comes out looking good.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look.

I only know of DXOMark testing real ISOS

Fixing this is as simple as changing the menu isos to the real ones via firmware, something they will not do for sure.

This practice is good to fool people that follow reviews like those of Dpreview, were no one care about the conditions of the shot.

But in real world people will have to use ISO 3200 in conditions where they would normally would use ISO 1600; maybe they do not complain because ISO 3200 on the E-M5 is as good as iso 1600 in other cameras. It is ISO 1600 indeed!!

To be fair most companies (canon, nikon included) lie about real iso but to the date worst example was Fuji X100; the E-M5 has made a new benchmark about what lying is.

This practices are unfair for companies like Leica or Panasonic which have very well calibrated sensors

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

As mentioned in another thread DPReview only tests exposure variance with JPEG while DXO tests the exposure variance with RAW. That is the difference you are seeing here.

Some E-M5 users have already reported that RAW is underexposed by 1EV vs JPEG when shooting RAW+JPEG. Oly likely does this to help preserve the highlights. So they likely push the underexposed RAW output of shadows and mid-tones by 1EV, leaving highlights underexposed therefore preserving them in JPEG. You noticed from Dpreview the E-M5 had very high JPEG DR.

And Now We Know

I'm glad to finally have these results. I hope that you guys don't get swamped with work again and are able to test the GH3 very soon, because I find it to be the more exciting m4/3 camera.

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables.

Still, for me, this signifies more than anything else that Olympus has STOPPED MESSING AROUND. They spent three years producing shit, and they have finally given us the m4/3 camera they should have made when they originally produced the E-P1.

Re: And Now We Know

Re: And Now We Know

Quote:

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables.

If the ISO speed for the OMD is off by a stop, I think the noise rating from DXO makes sense (relative to other site data). However, the color depth and DR still seem too low. Even with the stop difference in ISO, other sites have the OMD sensor neck and neck with the NEX cameras and completely dominating the RX100 sensor. Yet DXO has the OMD neck and neck with the 1", RX100 sensor. I don't know if I buy it.

One thing that is not explained in the review are the reasons for the months delay in results. Previously, there were "anomalies" with the data. What is special about these results? The ISO issue should not trip up DXO by their testing methods. Nothing explained, as usual.

First replies for this comment

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

I think that is because DxOMark's testing is more rigorous, or perhaps different is a better term. They determine their ISO score based on the point that detail, dynamic range, and color depth all stay above a certain value.

So for example, a camera may do very well as regards detail retention, but the camera will still get a score of 600 from DxO if the color depth or DR drop too low.

Re: Why is it taking so long to get a test done on the OM-D / E-M5?

Re: Why is it taking so long to get a test done on the OM-D / E-M5?

It is obvious at this point that DXOlabs has no intention of testing this camera. Presumably they have a grudge against Olympus, and since the sensor in this camera is far better than similar sensors of the competition, they don't want to give them the satisfaction. DXOLabs sucks.

First replies for this comment

Re: And your point is?

Hi,

We only got a pre-production sample in our hands for now. So, impossible to run our full test procedure on it.But, because not everybody got an OM-D in their hands, we still wanted to share our first impressions with you.